But hey, these are the Republicans that right-wingers on RJ support. "I don't necessarily support these measures, I just vote for the politicians who pass them into law, because Republicans are good for the US, in some other ways I'm not able to convincingly explain."

While I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS, I must say its no different then that senator or whoever he was( I forgot already) that was kicked out of the lesbian owned Restaurant a few weeks back, IE private places can decide who they want to do business with. So while I don't agree with it, if we tell them that they have to allow adoptions then we cant also think its ok to kick out/not serve anti gay people from a lesbian owned establishment...... Or at least that's how I see it and Its just my opinion.

Yes, this is a result of the Republican takeover of our State Senate (barely) last November. Rather than deal with pressing issues of job creation, transportation and the environment in the current legislative session, our government is attending to a conservative agenda that includes shoring up discrimination against gays, eliminating our 2-gun-per-month purchase restriction that has been in place since the 1980's (how have we managed to get by all these years only being able to buy 2 guns in a given month?), and passing voter access restrictions that will prevent all the liberal rabble who voted for Obama in '08 from participating in the 2012 elections. All of this adds to the conservative credentials of our governor, who is in the running to be the #2 guy with whoever ends up #1 on that side of the ballot. Stay tuned.

If this passes, it will be struck down as unconstitutional. This has so many ramifications against gays. Need a loan from a bank? Denied because you're gay. Need to buy a car? Not at this dealership. Need to see a doctor? Not this doctor, because you're gay. Need to rent a house?

I thought that adoption was primarily for the benefit of the child. If the best couple to raise a child happens to be composed of two men or two women, why does what the Vatican thinks have any bearing?

Remember: this is not about deciding that a gay couple is not the best fit for a child. This is about Catholic adoption charities being allowed to decide that however perfect a gay couple would be for a child, they would have him/her rather adopted by a second-best straight couple.

There was the case of a gay foster couple who had tended for a child for several years. Once they decided to adopt him, the state told them they were not allowed to because they were gay. This despite the fact that Social Services had determined the child to be in outstanding living condition, and the child expressing he wanted to be adopted.

When you are in the business of finding a life-long match for a child, who has so little power and influence over the process, you better make sure your biases don't get in the way of the child's interests.

Mepark saidI don't get it. Not that I think it's fair, but I thought "private" means they can do whatever they want anyways?

Read the article. Dozens of these private adoption and foster care agencies contract with the state, meaning they're funded at least partly by tax-payers.

Exactly -- if you're gay and you live in Virginia, not only are you being discriminated against (if you want to adopt children), you also get to pay for the privilege!Thanks again, Republicans. You're really the gift that keeps on giving.